There are quite a lot of reports saying that the fees Spotify, Apple Music and other music streaming services pay artists are very low. These reports tend imply that because people are streaming, not as much music is being purchased and hence overall revenues for artists are down.
See this article on CNBC:
When people bought albums and even mp3s, there was a glimmer of hope that a musician could earn a decent income on sales. But now musicians are essentially giving away their music in return for pennies.
[Spotify's] exploitative relationship with musicians has trickle-down effects. The most basic is that any artist who can’t afford to make music is not going to be making much more of it
But even these massive numbers are paltry when you consider what fans might've spent if they had purchased a full album. In order for the rights holders of an album to earn $10 (the cost of most digital downloads) from Spotify, an individual user would need to stream the tracks on it 1,190 times. And in my small sample size of Verge staffers, most capped out at a few hundred streams per artist.
Clearly most artists are not earning much money directly from Spotify. There are other ways artists will make money - album sales, live shows and merchandise - but the articles quoted appear to equate streaming an album with a lost sale. The assumption that streaming services are lowering artists revenues is only ever supported by anecdotal evidence and I have never seen an article link to any studies that support this.
My question is, has any research has been done into how listening on streaming services changes artists revenues? In particular, is the assumption seen in news reports justified, that people who use streaming services buy less music?